Data for: Relaxed current matching requirements in highly luminescent perovskite tandem solar cells and their fundamental efficiency limits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Figure 1 contains data for the limiting efficiency of a Shockley-Queisser tandem solar cell, with and without luminescence coupling included in simulations. Figure 2 contains decay data from transient absorption spectroscopy and photoluminescence quantum efficiency measurements for the halide perovskite thin film FA0.7Cs0.3Pb(I0.7Br0.3)3. It also contains absorption coefficient and (real) refractive index for both FA0.7Cs0.3Pb(I0.7Br0.3)3 and FAPb0.5Sn0.5I3 thin films, as measured by a combination of ellipsometry, photothermal deflection spectroscopy and Ubach tail fitting. Figure 3 contans the absorbance of FAPb0.5Sn0.5I3 in an idealised tandem stack with FA0.7Cs0.3Pb(I0.7Br0.3)3, the limiting efficiency of this stack as a function of thickness without and with luminescence coupling included in simulations, and the difference in power generated throughout the year without and with luminescence coupling for a typical spectral year on the Canada/USA border from these modelled solar cells. Figure 4 contains the limiting efficiency of the all-perovskite tandem as a function of charge trapping rate (for optimised thicknesses) with luminescence coupling, and a ratio of this result to a second simulation including luminescnece coupling. Figure 5 explores an experimental all-perovskite tandem solar cell. It contains the photoluminescence emission (relative to that at open-circuit voltage) of the high-bandgap sub-cell as a function of applied voltage when illuminated by a 405nm laser, the microscopic photoluminescence from a cross section of the tandem when excited by a 636nm laser, the photolumiescence from a cross section of this region when only the high-bandgap sub-cell is excited, and the time resolve photoluminescence of this emission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".